HL Deb 08 May 1846 vol 86 cc218-9

presented a petition from the Vakeel of the Rajah of Sattara, praying for inquiry into the circumstances under which that Sovereign had been deposed and deprived of his liberty. He would not state any more on that occasion than this—that from 1818 to 1839, the Rajah was considered a loyal subject, and stricly maintained his engagements with the East India Company. Shortly after the last of these years a charge of conspiracy was brought against him by the Supreme Court of Bengal; but the accusations against him had never been proved, though he had repeatedly sought to be put on his trial with respect to them. With regard to another charge, he was treated in the same way; but instead of being allowed the trial which he courted, in order that he might prove his innocence, he was carried off in the dead of the night and committed to prison, where he was at present confined. The whole of his personal property had been since secured. He also presented another petition from a servant of the Rajah, declaring that his master had always been a loyal subject, and that he himself had been placed over a powder magazine, and imprisoned, before he consented to sign a paper, containing charges against the Rajah.


had no particular answer to the observations of the noble Lord (Beaumont), and all he could say upon the subject was, that it had been fully considered in the Session of last year. It had been maturely considered by the Governor of Bombay, and been minutely examined by the Governor General in Council, and had received every attention from the late President of the Board of Control (Sir John Cam Hobhouse), who had gone most fully into the question; and it had afterwards been most maturely discussed by the Court of Proprietors of the East India Company; in fact, this subject had been under discussion at least sixteen or seventeen times; and the original decision had in every case been confirmed. With respect to the jewels of which the noble Lord spoke, they were not the private property of the Rajah, and had been, as the property of the State, handed over to the successor of the Government, with the exception of jewels, worth about two lacs of rupees, which the Rajah had retained for his own private use. With respect to the purport of the second petition, which complained that insufficient evidence had been adduced against him, this was the first time that any such allegation had been made. He, himself, was not responsible for whatever had occurred, for the circumstances took place before he had anything to do with the office he now held, or, indeed, before the present Government came into power at all.


said, if their Lordships wished to have all the case before them, it would be necessary for them, in order to come to a right decision, to read the able and elaborate Report of Sir R. Grant, the late Governor of Bombay; from the perusal of that document he (Lord Brougham) came to the conclusion that the decision was just.


The statement on which he laid particular stress was—without saying whether the Rajah was guilty or not—that it was considered he had not had a fair trial, from the manner in which it was conducted.

Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.

House adjourned.

Back to